Michigan legislative action thread
Posted on 03/15/2015 2:08:04 PM PDT by cripplecreek
LANSING, MI -- A Republican presidential candidate hasn't won Michigan since 1988, but with 2016 on the horizon, GOP lawmakers are proposing bills that could help a second-place finisher win some electoral college votes here.
• Rigging? State Rep. Cindy Gamrat, R-Plainwell, this month reintroduced legislation that would award Michigan's electoral college votes by Congressional District, ditching the winner-take-all model that most states use and diminishing the influence of large cities that can swing a vote.
David Weigel of Bloomberg News, calling the bill part of the "electoral college-rigging movement," noted that Republican nominee Mitt Romney would have won nine of Michigan's 16 electoral college votes in 2012 under the proposed system despite losing to Democratic President Barack Obama by nearly 450,000 votes.
But Gamrat, who posted the Bloomberg article on Facebook, defended her proposal online. It would increase "the value of every Michigan citizen's vote in Presidential elections," she wrote. "Far from electoral college rigging - it strengthens the voice of each Michigan voter!"
• Proportional: Sen. Dave Hildenbrand, meanwhile, introduced a bill this week that would divide Michigan's electoral votes proportionally based on the number of votes the top candidate receives. Win 54 percent of the vote, as Obama received in 2012, a candidate would get 9 of 16 electoral votes. The runner-up would get the rest.
"I think it just better reflects the voters of the state," Hildenbrand, R-Lowell, told MLive. "Instead of a Republican winning and all electoral votes just represent the Republican voters, or a Democrat wins and all electoral votes represent Democrats, why can't we have a system that reflects all voters of our state?"
In an interesting twist, Hildenbrand tie-barred his bill to another from Sen. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, that would see Michigan join a National Popular Vote compact. If enough states sign on, each would award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Until then, Michigan would go with a proportional system.
• TIMING: The exercise may be academic, as Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has shied away from proposed electoral college legislation each of the last two years, saying it would be more appropriate to have the discussion following the next U.S. Census.
House Elections Chair Lisa Lyons, R-Alto, told Gongwer News Service it may already be too close to 2016 to modify the state's electoral college system. Senate Elections Chair Dave Robertson, R-Grand Blanc, said he wants to study the Hildenbrand and Warren bills, but doesn't expect to hold a hearing anytime soon.
This is the year to have the debate, according to Hildenbrand. "I think once it gets into next year the parties are trying to position themselves to advantage a certain candidate or party," he said. "So I don't think next year is the time to have this conversation, but this year it is."
Thanks for the heads up.
That would put Romney in the lead--though not at a win.
Now, if I recall correctly, in Nebraska and Maine, the OTHER two electoral votes go to the "overall" statewide winner.
Romney won 24 states in 2012, which would have given him 48 more electoral votes if the Nebraska/Maine model were followed.
226+48=274 Electoral votes.
Valerie's man-child was able to seize 26 states plus the DC region. That would net her team 55 EVs.
209+55=264.
Romney would be the one working to rebuild America, instead of Hussein doing Val's bidding in destroying the republic.
Giving the votes proportionally would ruin any attempt by the democrats to cheat their way to victory in Detroit and Flint.
Go ahead and produce a billion Detroit votes for democrats, ya still only get 1 vote from your district.
Naturally the democrats are livid.
Romney is a statist, he would not be working to rebuild the Republic, but to solidify its destruction.
In this, there is no difference between Romney and Obama.
Romney doesn’t matter at this point.
The point is that this plan would override democrat attempts at fraud and give us a fighting chance in Michigan.
This has enormous potential. There are quite a few states where the winner is decided by the voter fraud in big cities in that state. However, it’s a bit like belling the cat — you have to get a GOP majority and governor in the state before it could pass.
Agreed.
The point is that this plan would override democrat attempts at fraud and give us a fighting chance in Michigan.
Democrat fraud
means nothing if the only other option is functionally identical Republican
— yes, the system needs to have integrity… but, then, so do the candidates.
If you think about it, this would have forced Romney to campaign in conservative districts instead of focusing on the big money around Detroit.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
The state legislatures need to grow some and work with patriots to put a stop to illegal federal taxes. And when voters manage to peacefully force corrupt Congress back into its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited power cage, then we’re probably going to have problems finding good people to serve as federal lawmakers.
On the other hand, since the plurality of clauses in Section 8 deal with military, serving as federal lawmaker would be a good way to honor outstanding retired soldiers.
The electoral college is enumerated in terms of the number of Congressional districts, plus one for each Senate seat.
Not sure why this simple solution eludes folks (other than protecting their own self-serving interests).
Each congressional district gets ONE EV, and it casts in favor of the national candidate taking a plurality of the vote in that district.
Each State then has two EV’s to be cast in favor of the candidate who wins a plurality of the vote in the State.
Simple. Representative of the Congressional district politics at the same time.
Levels out the uneven playing field monopolized by large metro areas. Here in Ohio, for instance, it doesn’t take too close a look to see that the State would have swung heavily Republican if you take out the inordinate influence of Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus; add in Dayton and Toledo, and those of us elsewhere in the State could just say home.
Nope.
It would be great, but it would never happen in MI. PA had the same idea a couple of years back but nixed it when it had a nominal Republican governor.
They said RTW would never happen in Michigan too.
I’d rather have the house vote for the President.
Districts select their representative and the representative votes for the President. No winner take all.
No, Romney's not a statist?
Prove it.
I prefer the district system.
A simple majority (50+ %) of each district decides which candidate receives that district’s electoral vote. If none of the candidates receive a majority, the two candidates that receive the most votes have a run off election 30 days later.
The state then has two other electoral votes. One should go to the candidate that received the most votes in the state. The second should go to the candidate that won the most districts in that state. Should there not a candidate that won the most districts in that state, the Gov at the time of the election appoints the state’s final electoral vote.
This is also something that the Wisconsin Legislature should consider.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.